Domestic Homicide Review Taskforce questionnaire: results summary

Review Panel

A series of questions were asked about what the review panel should look like. There was strong agreement amongst respondents on the need for an independent chair (11=yes, 2='I don't know'). Most respondents did not favour having a rotating chair (7=no, 1=yes, 4=I don't know).

There was a preference for one national review panel (n=7), with only one respondent answering that a DHR should include multiple review panels (at local level). One respondent explained the preference for one national panel:

"a single national process allows for consistency in implementation of the process itself, but also means that learning can be viewed in a broad way to inform the 'whole system' response at national level".

Two respondents suggested there might be scope for both a national panel and panels at a local level. One respondent emphasised that there should be consistency, with the right people involved and training standardised across the country. Two respondents answered "I don't know."

There was also a slight preference for a permanent review panel (n=6), although other suggestions included:

• Appointments should be time-limited
• A permanent core group of members, with ad-hoc members added depending on the particulars of the case
• A permanent panel (with fixed terms) at national level, and more ad hoc arrangements at local level
• It should be flexible and based on demand

Three respondents answered I don't know.

Other general comments on the review panel from survey respondents included:

• Need for experience (for the chair as well as the panel) in the domestic abuse field, as well as sufficient seniority
• Team of chairs (rather than a rota) might be beneficial for scrutiny
• Consistent training is needed
• Questions about the role of the panel: is it to commission and quality assure the review, or to undertake the review itself?
• Important that the DHR process "does not prejudice or put in jeopardy a prosecution or Fatal Accident Inquiry proceedings" – MOU (memorandum of understanding)/Protocol needed between the DHR panel, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland to establish process
• Ensure wellbeing of/trauma support for the panel
• The panel should be appointed from a pool of fully trained professionals with the required skills and knowledge
• There is a need for a robust and proactive professional secretariat.